User talk:Stephen Burnett
I didn't edit anything. ?
This is the only time I have logged on, and I have only been on for a few minutes, I haven't edited anything yet,(as if I know how to edit.) You are sure it was my account?--Hanpingz 21:00, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
- Well, you just edited my talk page without problems. If you don't know how to view edits made by your account, this will display a list of them. The edit I'm referring to is this one. --Stephen Burnett 21:23, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
Teawaker
Hi, this is Sheridan H. I refer to your editing of my contributions to the Teasmade stub. As owner of the website www.teasmade.com I have some authority with regard to the use of the name Teasmade and the words teamaker and teawaker (which I invented). The word teamaker is inadequate as a generic on this stub as it does not distinguish tea making machines with an alarm function from those without. I discussed the adoption of the word teawaker as a real word with the Oxford English Dictionary before I initiated its use, and I will shortly be approaching them with the evidence they require for its adoption. My aim is to create a generic word which can be used freely without incurring the wrath of Littlewoods who own the trademark Teasmade. I am not attempting to advertise the website www.teawaker.com. Under the circumstances I'm sure it must be acceptable to define 'teawaker' on Wikipedia and to use this word anywhere on the site. I would like to reinstate it please.
- Thanks for your note. Unfortunately Wikipedia relies on authoritative sources for the vocabulary of its articles. It is my personal view that when the Oxford English Dictionary sees fit to introduce the word "teawaker" into the English vocabulary then its use can be considered on Wikipedia. Forgive me, but would I be correct in my suspicion that "the evidence they require for its adoption" is evidence of its prior public use, which you are hoping to bring about by introducing it here? If so, I don't think that coining and publicising new words is what we are here for.
Your assumption regarding evidence is correct, but the word has already reached the required standard for inclusion, so publicity is not required. I intend to talk to OUP again soon, but I am in no particular rush!
I discussed the potential genericisation of the word "teasmade" with a number of authorities as there is no alternative generic other than a lengthy phrase "an appliance which combines the functions of a teamaker and an alarm clock". I was advised that it was impractical to pursue the matter and that under the circumstances it would be perfectly appropriate to introduce an alternative.
My entry on Wikipedia is not for publicity. What would be the point? I have no commercial interest in the new word - in fact its whole premise is anti-commercial. I respect Wikipedia and all it stands for, and I believe that it is the best place to correct the misconceptions and mistruths about Teasmades/teawakers.
- The other problem I had with the word was that, just as "teamaker" does not distinguish tea making machines with an alarm function from those without, "teawaker" does not cover one of the functions of the Teasmade, which is to make tea immediately, without the use of the alarm function.
The word "teamaker" does not cut the ice as a definition of "an appliance which combines the functions of a teamaker and an alarm clock". I have explained the Tea Now aspect on the Teasmade discussion page, and can go into more detail if required.
- Having expressed my own view, the way things happen on Wikipedia is by discussion and consensus. If you are agreeable, I can copy our discussion to the article's talk page for consideration by other editors. If there is a reasonable consensus towards the adoption of the word then I am willing to be persuaded.
I have opened discussion on that page.
- By the way, it is useful if you sign your contributions to talk pages (NOT articles) by adding four tildes - like this: ~~~~. This will expand to show your user ID date and time.
Thanks for your explanation. There's a lot to learn but I'm getting there!
- Many thanks. --Stephen Burnett 18:44, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
You are Mistaken
You have left a message for me accusing me of vandalism. You are mistaken. I in no way defaced the page dedicated to William Faulkner. According to my service provider IP addresses assigned to their users can change as often as weekly.
I do not appreciate being accused of something I didn't do.
- I have just reviewed the edits made under your current IP. If you are referring to an edit made under IP 74.123.72.106, the only edit to William_Faulkner is this one, which is clearly a revert made to delete vandalism. In that case I can only apologise for what is a rare mistake: I revert scores of incidents of vandalism every day, and I do my best to attribute warnings appropriately.
- If the warning appears under another IP, however, that is simply an unfortunate consequence of using Wikipedia anonymously, rather than signing up for an account. Anonymous IP's are not exempt from action taken as a result of vandalism simply because a number of users may have used that IP; the action will be taken regardless of who happens to be the user on the other end. Further vandalism from that IP will therefore result in escalating warnings, and finally in a block.
- It is, however, very quick and easy to sign up for an account, and this will enable you to retain your own individual identity and editing history. You can do it here.
- By the way, it is useful if you sign your contributions to talk pages (NOT articles) by adding four tildes - like this: ~~~~. This will expand to show your user ID date and time.
- Regards, --Stephen Burnett 16:12, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
please explain why the deleted link is any different in content from the two other links at the bottom of the body painting page. this is an online photo portfolio as the other two links are.
1. I feel you would benefit by reading Wikipedia's policy on external links, particularly the sections on Links normally to be avoided and advertising and conflicts of interest:
- One should avoid ...:
- Links mainly intended to promote a website.
- Links to sites that primarily exist to sell products or services.
- You should avoid linking to a website that you own, maintain or represent, even if the guidelines otherwise imply that it should be linked. If the link is to a relevant and informative site that should otherwise be included, please consider mentioning it on the talk page and let neutral and independent Wikipedia editors decide whether to add it.
2. The presence of other links which you feel are similar in nature in no way invalidates the above; each link has to stand or not on its own merits.
3. I would point out that the other sites are competently designed, with well structured content and a main page which loads in a reasonable amount of time. This is very much to their benefit.
By the way, it is useful if you sign your contributions to talk pages (NOT articles) by adding four tildes - like this: ~~~~. This will expand to show your user ID date and time. Regards, --Stephen Burnett 19:24, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
- Thought you might want to know... but both of the RPV accounts have been blocked due to your warnings and the creation of the sock to get around your warning ;-) Balloonman 22:39, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
- Many thanks for taking the time to let me know. :)) --Stephen Burnett 11:42, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your kind comment. I would like to invite you to give some input on the Francis Bacon article. Although you have admitted that you are not that familiar with the subject matter, I believe an objective simple analysis of the short article's proportion of space given over to (what in my opinion is) speculation might help in inching toward some consensus. Aburesz 17:35, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
I did'nt even touch the page on rythm, The only thing I edited today was the page on The international school of Choueifat!